Abstract: This article explores the boundaries of absolutist "sexual
abuse" categorisations by addressing the issue of the transgenerational
"genital reference" within a nonpreparatory nonhygienic nonmedical
setting. In an attempt to construe the" abusiveness" of these
practices, it was argued that (1) the globalisation of categorisation
efforts with regard to "sexual abuse" has not been informed by an
ethnographically informed developmentalist perspective on sexuality; and
that (2) "abuse globalists" selectively disregard or employ ethnography to
arrive at justifications of a reductionist moral agenda. These problems
render problematic the xenoculturalist criticism implicit both in the
works of radical psychohistorians, and global protectionists.

Using academic input as a bias, it can be maintained that while
contemporary U. S. discourse regarding "sexual" enculturation is heavily
negotiated, the culturalist entry is progressively politicised within a
globalist spectre. This last development facilitates nationalist,
regionalist and continentalist articulation of sexual politics.
Beside effects in female education and mobility, family planning, career
building, AIDS prevention, human right protection, and the distribution of
associated prestige factors, it has not become obvious how this global
curriculum would address early erotics. The manifold consequences of
universalist projects in sexual abuse politics have been explored by many
theorists, but the fundamental concepts are still rather monolithic and
thematically biased. The American concept (cult, some may argue) of
the atraumatic sexual trajectory certainly has proved substantial
instrumentality in addressing abuse issues worldwide, but how does the
"sexual" fit in? As post-modernists now consider "sexualities" as
essentially plural, functional and embedded, a globalist world warrants an
ideological basis for a discussion of "sexual developmental cultures"
somehow to be pieced together from contemporary proliferating reflection
on "sexual cultures" and behaviour categories. The place of "abuse"
categorisations within this cultural project is a central one today.
One recalls that the "Rosenfeld studies" in the 1980s, examining a range
of sexual socialisation related items, including primal scene exposure
(1980)4, cross-generational co-sleeping
(1982)5, touching parents' genitals, breasts
(1986)6 and cross-generational co-bathing
(1987)7, and, less clear, modesty
conceptions (1984)8, were related to the
tentative categorisation of American intrafamilial "abuse", Rosenfeld's
original agenda (e.g., 1977)9 (cf. Lewis and
Janda, 1988)10. We also see that
abuse categorisation has taken a leap by the progressive downward
extension of age requirements for perpetrators, and the subsequent issuing
of "normative categories" and trajectories, an American peculiarity
traceable to Gesell and Ilg's work in the 1940s11.

Past culturalist or cross-culturalist views of "sex" tended to brush
over internal variability, assume historical immutability, and equate
cultural relativism with ethical relativism. Taking these caveats
seriously, a number of issues can be observed from the ethnohistorical
record. In my ongoing project "Growing Up Sexually"12,
in which I attempt to bring together ethnographic, ethnological and
sociological materials for a constructionist interpretation of human
erotic/sexual trajectories and curricula, a large range of practices would
have to be labelled "abusive" according to Occidental postindustrial
measures. The list includes various instances of explicit and direct
transmission of sexual techniques, semi-formal age-stratified coital
introductions, coitus demonstrations, the praxis of institutional
intructrices, genital preparatory modifications, parenting customs
(references to genitalia, "sexual teasing", apparent indifference to
"primal scene" exposure), less flagrant age-dismatched (subgenerational)
patterns, age-nonsegregated dormitory systems, ritualised as well as non-ritualised
(e.g., non-mentor) generationally disparate patterning and "recruitment",
enforced coitarche, etc. These practices, it can be argued, are
borne out of interventionalist13 attitudes
which can be explained on the basis of (e.g., paternal-fraternal) interest
curricula not encountered in contemporary Euro-American history.

The feminist curriculum has pioneered a moralist universalism versus a
selection of these issues. Yet it appears that contemporary
globalist categorisations of abuse lack a well-documented analysis of
practices traditionally encountered worldwide. It is therefore
unable to address practices found historically and (more urgently)
contemporarily. Some battles are based on unilateral
interpretations, while eccentric issues are ignored in what may be the essentialisation of Western categorialism. Thus, while
clitoridectomy and other bloody morphology alterations have received
extensive criticism, there seems to be a concurrent disregard of the young
cunnus being subject to the extensive cosmetic of functional preparation
in some way or another practised in a large number of (African and
Oceanic) societies14. The issue of
abuse is a more problematic one here (the girls may practice it in
groups).

Exploring the specific issue of intergenerational patterns of "genital
reference" and avoidance, this article tentatively questions the
anthropological legitimacy of abuse categorialism15.
It does so by an attempt to reflect on how such praxis would be abuse.
A discussion of abusiveness, of course, should not be restricted to the
"cultural politics of baselines". The limited preliminary functional
analysis offered below is at odds with hegemonic abuse ideologies that
tends to avoid abuse-usage juxtapositions of sexuality. Anticipating
global sexuality politics, the following discussion also hints at
problematic collateral categorialisms (what is sexual) and the issue of
absolute or relative age in gravity debates (how young or how much
difference makes how bad).

Regarding intergenerational genital avoidance, a number of remarkable
observations have been documented ethnographically. A most extreme
case of laxity in sexual behaviour curricularisation is noted by Jules
Henry (1941 [1964: p 17-9])16 for the
Brazilian Kaingangs, a tendency also suggested to be characteristic of the
Brazilian Xokleng and Tupinamba, Colombian Kagaba, Venezuela Warao, and
Bolivian Siriono. Kaingang children would be so saturated by the
sexual attentions of adults that they would not feel the urge to play
around amongst themselves.

Nonpreparatory nonhygienic nonmedical transgenerational genital
handling is noted for a large number of societies17,
as several authors have previously noted for minor samples18.
Mostly, only one ethnographer documents the practice within a given
setting; the Puerto Rico case, however, was mentioned by at least ten
independent researchers.

A frequent variant of the manual technique is the oral/labial one19,
and even feet may be used (Simaku). Infant orgasm is never reported,
but tumescence scores high on the alleged agenda. Cults of baby's
genital organ are commonly noted for boys and girls, but in some cases
definitely20 or possibly21
not for both. Male but not female stimulation is seen in, among
other societies, the Lodha (West-Bengal), the Iatmul of Middle Sepik, and
the Kpelle. The practise is variably noted for both parents or
either parent, but rarely a definite attitudinal difference is documented
(as among the Kogi).

One classification refers to a collateral phenomenon known as intergenerational "sexual teasing" found in some way or another in many
societies22, a theme rarely explored in a systematic fashion. For example,
Sibley (1970)23 found ten types of teasing Philippine24 children that could be
classified as "broadly sexual in nature". The practice of genital fondling was
observed to be a common form of "teasing". 28 children 4 years of age or older
were reported to have been dealt with this way at least up to the age of four. Of these 28, ranging in age from age 5 to 16 at the time of the interviews, 18
still received
this treatment; the other ten were reported by their mothers as being "too old"
for this.

Rarely studied, children may ubiquitous be "teased" both by superior generations
and peer subcultures25 in response to their early heterosexual aspirations. This
drives the
aspirations underground26, but more essentially provides a
curricularised
meaning to
nascent heterosexual initiatives. As Martinson notes, peer teasing on sexual
issues "[...] recognizes the phenomenon without clearly designating its meaning
or importance". What should generally be understood by intergenerational "sexual"
teasing does not imply a response to misconduct but to obviously absurd
insinuations or allegations of sexual impotence and heterosexual inadequacy, of
infidelity and to mock proposals. The teasing is not generally restricted to the
gender of either counterpart, but this may be a cultural trait. The adult poses
an overtly impossible demand or appeal to the child's sexual knowledge, virtues,
alleged history or pride27.

Although some forms of "teasing" have been designated abusive (in terms of
roughness, inconsiderateness), the typical practice seems to be intended to
actively cultivate a well- articulated performance-based anticipation of the
boy's sexual [behavioural] curriculum, which process somehow represents a
protagonist of his callousness to withstand attacks on his sense of maleness,
eventually leading to his mastering the situational absurdity.

In a dialogue form, he is encouraged to develop a way of dealing verbally with
these jocularities that also characterise preadolescent peer groups, where the
practice may be less obviously age- or power-stratified. He learns to boast, to
counter or "get even", and to establish a personal narrative, a style of
"talking sex" or "doing sex" and get out unharmed, even in the obviously unfair
intergenerational encounter.

Genital soothing may well have been widespread in Medieval Europe (vide infra). Brusendorff and Henningsen (1963:p30, 34)28 suggest this was the case in
Denmark
even "a few generations ago". Even in recent Southern Italy, it was likely the
young boy has his penis "singled out for teasing admiration. This open phallic
admiration is characteristic of the behaviour of mothers and sons, and in
teasing infrafamily behaviour the genital organs may be poked or referred to
with provocative gestural indications" (Parsons, 1964 [1969:p255])29. Among the
Gitano (Spanish gypsies), "[...] the sexual identity of children receives much
attention in language and gesture, and is treated in a very joyful and playful
manner. Praises or displays of affection to children very often involve
references to their genitals. Adults — or older children
— often address children
through the words that define the genitals, and show their affection by rubbing
or grabbing their sexual areas, and kissing or biting them there" (Blasco,
1994:p54)30. The boys' masculinity is addressed more than the girls' femininity:
"[...] mothers love making their male babies' penises become erect, photos of
boys aged two or three smoking sigarettes, or else naked, hung on the walls of
every gitano house; and from that same age boys are very much encouraged to be
proud of their genitals".

The suggested historical universality in Europe (Van Ussel, Duerr, DeMause,
Kahr, Aries, Haeberle, De la Marche, Brongersma, Dasberg; vide infra) is based
on the interpretation of mostly negativist comments addressing the malpractice
of Nurses and ignorant mothers. Most commentators on the European case have
globally stressed the historical question of sex as nascent "problem" stage
(e.g., Van Ussel) while others (DeMause) conversely use its occurrence to
chronicle the "nightmare" of the world's incestuous pedagogical past31; however,
a satisfying functional analysis has not been
offered. Aries (1960 [1973:pl0l])32 states that "the practice of playing with
children's
privy parts formed part of a widespread tradition". This could be so because or
despite the idea that "the child under the age of puberty was believed to be
unaware of or
indifferent to sex. Thus gestures and allusions had no meaning for him;
they became purely gratuitous and lost their sexual significance" (p103). The reverse
of Aries'
generalisation (L'Enfant, p 102, 105), informed by the overly cited case of
young Louis
XIII, is that the "exaggerated interest shown in his [Louis XIII] phallic
development and
the premature stimulation to which he was subjected are more than accounted for
by the fact that his potential sexual performance was literally a question of
state" (Marvick, 1974a33:p351-2; cf. Duerr, [1988, I:p207-9]34). Orest Ranum, in
a comment to similar
explanations by Marvick (1974b; cf. Marvick, 1974c:p262-3)35 argues that the
descriptions of early sexual arousal and methods of social control used to rear
children illuminate the entire French society in which "social control rested
overtly on paternity and physical force", that is, justice, sexuality, politics,
etc, had meanings to the 17th century mind very different from our [American]
own".

A cross-check with "sexual restraint" measures using the Standard Cross Cultural
Sample36 ("early childhood" measure, N=21) suggests that cultures for which the
practice is noted are situated in the low or mid-range. Speaking with Becker's37
reformulations, it seems that a number of these cultures are to be classified
among the "sex-positive" ones which would generally define sexual activities in
operational and prescriptive (rather
than proscriptive) terms; in others, the emphasis has to be put on a
pro-fertility concern. In still other societies, it seems to anticipate a sexual
culture characterised by a rigid
double standard principle. In most cases, however, the ethnographer is
comfortable with the explanation that it pleases the baby, that is, its use as a
sedative or hypnotic. The low frequency of cultures that may "teach
masturbation" (N=5) by the practice, and of the
seemingly paradoxical co-existence with discouraging attitudes toward
self-stimulation (N=3) suggests that direct behaviour modification intents are
rare. On the other hand, intents that clearly suggest an attitudinal shaping,
for instance, an introduction to
heterosexual agenda, may also be rare. However, this may reflect ethnographers'
hesitation to address or explore the issue.

A detailed culturalist localisation of the practice is rare (more interpretive
coverage,
however, was offered by Duerr38, by Money, Swayam Prakasam and Joshi, 199139,
and in a recent article by Rydstrøm, 2002)40. An analysis of cases in which
verbal utterances have been reported to accompany the practice, suggests that
generational/parental genital handling of the infant instrumentalises an amalgam
of motives: pacification, gratification, self-gratification, teasing, greeting,
facilitation of gender identity/role
facilitation (in terms of machismo), and demonstration of gender specific
parental pride. The Middle-Eastern and Latin American cases are most distinctly localised in this
respect. As referred to supra, for a number of societies41 genital manipulation
seems best covered by the concept of "teasing", or perhaps "greeting" (Telugu;
New Guinea). The Latin species seems firmly entrenched in the cultivation of
"machismo", and this
element may be central in other contexts (e.g., Suriname). The elements of
potency (e.g., Senegal, Zaire [Bakwa-Luntu, Bakongo], Tanzania, Martinique) and
virility (e.g., Puerto Rico, Turkey, Aritama) often seem to be genuine
anticipating concems42.

In some cases the practice would be explicitly tabooed, though it has been
argued that taboo followed excess (e.g., Mangaia); the 19th century European
case may be an
adequate example of this. Arndt (1954:p111)43 notes for the Ngadha: "Die
Wärterin solI das Kind nicht an die Geschlechtsteilen beruhren, damit es nicht
krank wird [... ]". A
Yoruba mother who would kiss her infant below the umbiculus, would be committing
incest (Staewen and Schonberg, 1970:p222)44. Possibly due to a spectre of
differential evaluation, the (public nature of the) practice of genital handling
may be subject to
considerable variation in microgeographic terms (Dani, Tzeltal, Ghana). Masturbation of boys themselves is collaterally prohibited in some societies practising materno-infantile stimulation (!Ko, Puerto Rico [debated], Trukese),
while in other cases, the mother
would encourage or "teach" self-masturbation (Katschtka, Japanese, Cub eo,
Basuto, Kogi).

In some additional cases manipulations of the mother are motivated by
preparatory intents such as thelopoesis (South African natives, Timbira) or
breast modification, prophallopoesis (Paraguay, Bimin-Kuskusmin), or
antiphallopoesis (Menomini), preputial conditioning (Hawai'i, Egypt, Turkomans,
Kurds, Uzbeks, Kazak-Kirghiz), cunnus preparation (Marquesan, Ra'Ivavae, Mangaia,
Hawai'i, Zimbabwe [vaRemba], Luba, Nkundo, Hottentot), and artificial
defloration (e.g., Wakka, Yanoama). However, preparatory and nonpreparatory
intents may be both present. Davenport (1992)45 points out that "[. ..] genital
stimulation as a means of pacifying a child may be regarded as
nonsexual [... ]", which is possibly true for most cases, except for those
aiming to
radicalise gender differences, to facilitate (future) sexual activity, and to
cultivate a specific heterosexual identity through genital socialisation.

Parental genital avoidance in industrial societies starts even with neonatal
grooming46. Judging from a cursory inventory, the topic of genitalia is usually
(still not invariably) avoided in Western baby massage books (N=6), some of
which were inspired by Asian customs. According to contemporary American
legislation, nonhygienic nonmedical approaches of the genitalia can probably be
construed as "abusive", as "delayed" weaning may cause adverse social
interpretations (Christian and Deardorff, 2000)47. According to sporadic
communications, genital reference practices have recently indeed fallen subject
to adverse interpretations (e.g., Aruba- Dutch Antilles)48. The case presented
by Money, Swayam Prakasam and Joshi (1991)49 appearing in the early days of this
journal is a hypothetical as well as directive one: "The meaning of these
customs is not erotic or sexual, but if engaged in in America would most likely
be misconstrued and the parents suspected of child sexual abuse" (ital. add.). It seems that few sources explore specific indigenous "abuse" concepts. According to a study by Angulo (1995)50, only 41.9% of Bali informants stated
that "fondling a young boy on his genitals by an adult" was not considered by
them as "child abuse"; for fondling young girls' genitals, this figure was 32.6%
([p90-2])51.

The obvious contemporary bias of abusiveness concepts has been informed by the
"sexual abuse in historical perspective" and" sexual abuse across cultures"
genres of the 1990s. Some authors52 have specifically addressed this issue of
cultural definition. However, "cross-cultural" considerations of sexual "abuse"
experiences of children are predominantly informed within the scope of American
ethnic minorities, and therefore being subculturalist rather than truly
cross-cultural53. Most writers, conversely, argue for a "cross-national"
approach in discussing combat motivation and strategies (e.g., Finkelhor and
Korbin, 1988)54. It must be argued that American definitions of "child sexual
abuse" are predominantly informed by age difference, and hardly any definition
goes without it. This sensitises the current case: when is the practice
discontinued and why? The point is unfortunately rarely addressed (Philippines),
and remains debated (Puerto Rico) or vague (Hopi, etc.). The legitimisation of
the practice remains obscure in most cases (the Balinese, for instance, stress
the "innocence" of the child).

Psychoanalytic Heritage, the Problematic Mother and "Cultures of Abuse"

Within a psychoanalytic set of mind, the direct stimulation of infant genitalia
represents a problem for Oedipal resolution: it would impact incest dynamics
(Fox, De VOS)55. Native reflections are very few in number on this point. This
issue, however, was referred to by Poole writing of the Bimin-Kuskusmin (New
Guinea), among whom it seems to be believed that continued stimulation will
damage the child's finiik, spirit or life force.

Within the revivalist "seduction" paradigm, mothers have been known to seemingly
unconsciously behave "seductively" toward their children on a normative basis (Sroufe
and Ward, 1980; Sroufe et al., 1985)56. The application of stereotyped Western
entries of understanding this behaviour ("female paedophilia"), however, seems
obviously
problematic. The ethnopsychiatric case can hardly be pursued outside the
psychodynamic tradition. Speaking with the argument of De Vos57, who seems to be
unaware of the cross-cultural frequency, postindustrial societies might safely personalise even maternal motivation because of its presumed rarity:

"[ a] mother who attempts genital stimulation of her son for her own
satisfaction would have to be extremely aberrant and sexually disturbed, since
the sexual satisfaction to be obtained from an infant or a small child would in
no way be comparable to that obtained from an adult male. It is therefore
unusual for a small child to experience the mother's active sexuality directed
toward him for her own genital gratification" (p170).

Others (e.g., Traina, 2000)58 suggest Western ideals and norms of mothering
should be revised to account for "the experience of maternity as erotically
pleasurable".

Lloyd DeMause utilises a particularly brutal use of
ethnomisic and
anti-anthropologist narrative in reducing history and all culture to abuse and
"incest"59 (DeMause likewise arranges parental objection to children's
self-stimulation as abusive). Few if any studies, however, justify recent
"Western" universality claims regarding traumatogenetic trajectories in cases of
subculturally or culturally endemic "illegal" practices60 at the empirical
level. These claims are progressively institutionalised, and this may legitimise
categorisation efforts. With too much ease, several cases of age disparate
systems are commonly lumped into convenient container categories, not unusually
including absurd historical interpretations:

"The earliest records on childhood sexuality [abuse] for such early
civilizations as the Celtic,
Germanic, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Japanese, Indian and Chinese all show
ritualized pederasty of the Australian and Melanesian type; i.e., boys beginning
at seven to ten years of age were forced to submit to fellatio and anal
intercourse under the belief that women were so
powerful and men so weak that only in this way would the boys be able to grow
sperm and attain manhood"61 [referring to Herdt].

DeMause's easy typology advocates outrageous misconceptions, including
generalisations pertaining to age, emic function, use of "force" (which is
nowhere demonstrated), and the attribution of "ritual" qualities. This obviously problematises the very foundations of the orthodox psychohistorical claim.

Officially, it can be argued, there is a striking though not perfect uniformity
of legislative curriculum among contemporary "Western" nations (Graupner,
1997)62, the minor differences not adequately legitimisable. What goes beneath
this global consensus are choices of rationale that progressively improbablise
discussion of fundamental issues, such as that addressing the militant
normalisation and naturalisation of protectionist curricula. Why normalising a
normal thing? The reverse of this may prove even more effective: why pathologising something pathogenic?

15 In favour of the current coverage of the subject, a complete
treatise, a condensed chapter highlighting clues for a functional
analysis, and a 15-page bibliography will be published elsewhere (Growing
Up Sexually, vols. II and III).
[Back]

24 Vanoverbergh (1928:p423) noted among the Negritos of Northern Luzon that "I
have [...j observed that the custom prevails of tickling and kissing them
[children] more especially on the genitals. This is also more or less practised
by the other tribes I have had to do with during my missionary career". See
Vanoverbergh, M. (1928) Negritos of Northern Luzon, Chapter III, Anthropos
23,3/4:399-433. Vanoverbergh (1938:p179) mentioned the practice among the
Northern Luzon Isneg (Apayao). See Vanoverbergh, M. (1938) The Isneg.
Washington: Catholic Anthropological Conference [Back]

27 Australians: Adults pretend erotic advances at babies jokingly calling them
husband and wife, and commenting on the size of their penis. Navajo: "A
two-year-old boy's uncle will begin to make remarks about the size of his nephews's penis and tease him about the various girls he has had. He might call
his niece "little mother" and ask her to take care of him, by giving him some
milk. The aunt might tease her nephew by
saying, "I want to sleep with you" or "I know you've been seeing someone else
while I was away""; Saramaka: "Men tease girls from infancy on by grabbing at
their "breasts" and genitals, and women often pull playfully at a little boy's
penis, interrogating him about whether he really knows how to use it and whether
he thinks it is big enough to satisfy them. A favorite way of engaging a two- or
three-year-old boy is to ask after his pregnant wife or, for a girl, to inquire
whether her recent labor pains were severe, and children are expected to provide
appropriate answers"; Hopi: "Mter I was four or five nearly all my grandfathers,
father's sisters' and clan sisters' husbands, played very rough jokes on me,
snatched at my penis, and threatened to castrate me, charging that I had been
caught making love to their wives, who were my aunts. All these women took my
part, called me their sweet-heart, fondled my penis, and pretended to want it
badly. They would say, "Throw it to me", reach out their hands as if catching
it, and smack their lips". [Back]

31 DeMause, L. (1974) The evolution of childhood, in DeMause, L. (Ed.) The
History of Childhood. New York: Psychohistory Press, pl-73, esp. p43-5I; DeMause,
L. (1982) Foundations of Psycho history. New York:
Creative Roots, Inc., p45, DeMause, L. (1998) The History of Child Abuse, J
Psychohist 25,3:216-36. DeMause (1988) concludes that "[l)ittIe Louis grew up
with quite severe sexual problems resulting from his having experienced incest,
and his adult love life consisted mainly of unhappy homosexual affairs with
young men". See DeMause, L. (1988) On Writing Childhood History, J Psychohist
16,2:135-71. For a similar approach, see
Kahr, B. (1991) The History of Sexuality: From Ancient Polymorphous Perversity
to Modern Genital Love, J Psychohist 26,4:764-78 [Back]

42 Other rationales are sporadic, including the carrying of babies on the back
to monitor premicturational erections, a Tanzanian and Turkish practice, and the
"[...] blowing or stroking to induce urination" found among the Nootka and
Ingalik. [Back]

46 Yates, who proclaims that "[t]he baby's whole body is a sexual organ",
comments on the neonatal grooming
process in parents, where genitals are avoided. Yates emphatically argued for
"erotic" bonding in the neonatal period of life, but seemed hesitant to
explicitly encourage mothers to masturbate. Yates, A. (1978) Sex Witlwut Shame.
New York: William Morrow, p15l-8 [Back]

51 Note that apart from Bali, the Indonesian case has further been recorded for
Java [incl. Modjokuto],
Borneo, Rungus Dusun, Toradja, Tobelorese, and Iban. The same stimulation, and
with the same purpose, is done with domestic animals (ibid., p35). [Back]